Have Your Say on a possible replacement for EMA

attemptingmoneysaving

EMA not a solution, was a cover up! Any benefits available to families need to continue to age 18 if this is the age young people have to remain in education to. Minimum wage should be the same for anyone working age 16 plus to recognize that not all teenagers even have a family and support network. This is one time where a 'one size fits all' approach doesn't work - some teenagers should still be in supported education past age 18, some are ready for the world of work at 16...or don't have any choice. The 'system' needs to support them all.

128plant

as a widow, my daughter relies on this scheme, or she couldnt continue. part time work isnt available in our rural area for her and this money is never used on luxuries. there is no rural service for her to get to college in time, and buses that do run only run off peak term time, funded by charity, for some strange reason, and are being cut further.
she relies on the money to get her to college. i have no problem with it being means tested or the like to weed out the wealthy. why dont those who dont need it give it to the poor students or a student benefiting charity if they feel its being spent on luxuries, in the meantime.
my younger children will be unable to stay on in quality education without it as the grammar schools are all looking top up money from the pupils, to keep up with the cuts too.
I have plenty of suggestions or illustrations for any research team who wish to explore options for a better scheme.

Roy_Pemberton

The_One_Who wrote: »

One caveat to the free (or at least cheap) transport is that it should only be available during the school hours and school terms.

Why? If they are not able, by reason of being in education, to earn a full-time salary, then why should they have to pay adult fares? It seems very unfair.

Otherwise, I would like to see funding provided to ensure that they can obtain the full benefit of their courses without having to incur additional expenditure - it should be a truly free education for all, which means stationery, mandatory supplies and trips/visits etc that are mandatory for the course should be provided free. If that's not possible, at the very least means tested support for these costs should be available.

Also, funding to provide a "job shop" specifically targetted at Saturday or other suitable part-time employment opportunities.

128plant

lizk wrote: »

when my daughter first started sixth form college last year, we were asked for a total of some £140 in the first two weeks. This was partly a college "fund", partly "insurance", a "kit" for one of her courses, special calculator for her a level maths etc. Kids in receipt of ema didn't pay for these things. Being on a low income, we struggled to find the cash which came on top of the £190 for the termly "subsidised" travel card which we subsequently discovered was more than the weekly bus pass cost. At the time we didn't qualify for ema but when her father died a few months ago, we qualified and claimed. The money is absolutely vital in going towards the cost of bus travel to the college (it is the only sixth form college in the region and we're well outside the 3 mile walking distance limit) and without it, i can image times when she wouldn't be able to attend. She certainly wouldn't be able to take advantage of some of the "enrichment" activities (theatre trips, conferences etc.) that are on offer.
For those who don't really need it, shame on you for claiming it. Don't knock those of us who are struggling.

i couldnt agree more, and most times widows, esp those like me who are voluntary carers for a family member are exempt from many of these schemes. My daughter has saved her ema to buy a moped to get her the 6 miles to college but hasnt enough for the license, gear or insurance and surviving on benefits neither have i. I feel dreadful that my kids will be wasting their intelligence as i cant get them to college or university. My poverty has condemned them. So much for the big society. Hypocrites. Keeping kids on to 18 wont change that. Most will have to stay away. We get free meals but thats a joke they can get a bottle of water and 1/2 panini on that and nothing else. Not even allowed tap water now because of health and safety etc. How can kids learn on that. Forget healthy school meals just get food in that they can afford like the junior sch meals. Gets me so angry. Come to the rural area and live it politicians. About time some decent gritty documentary came by and showed the real graft to just live never mind educate.

Hot_Beef

IMO a more rigorous method of deciding who would genuinely be more likely to go to college as a result of money dished out should be used.

I went to a private school - finished last year - and at least 5% of students got EMA because they lived with their mum who is a retired millionaire and their Dad still works full time and earns a tonne or vice versa. Both the students and their families were very well off anyway and it got spent on alcohol and leisure activities in general.

Maybe check parents savings too? Controversial but if it stops people wasting the money that could be used to improve others education then it's probably a good idea.

Roy_Pemberton

Lizk wrote: »

When my daughter first started sixth form college last year, we were asked for a total of some £140 in the first two weeks. This was partly a college "fund", partly "insurance", a "kit" for one of her courses, special calculator for her A Level maths etc. Kids in receipt of EMA didn't pay for these things. Being on a low income, we struggled to find the cash which came on top of the £190 for the termly "subsidised" travel card which we subsequently discovered was more than the weekly bus pass cost. At the time we didn't qualify for EMA but when her father died a few months ago, we qualified and claimed. The money is absolutely vital in going towards the cost of bus travel to the college (it is the only sixth form college in the region and we're well outside the 3 mile walking distance limit) and without it, I can image times when she wouldn't be able to attend. She certainly wouldn't be able to take advantage of some of the "enrichment" activities (theatre trips, conferences etc.) that are on offer.
For those who don't really need it, shame on you for claiming it. Don't knock those of us who are struggling.

Absolutely right! I'm happy to accept that it should be means tested, but to constantly tell us that nobody deserves or should have it is simply inaccurate. I feel your point about "enrichment" activities is well made. The implication is that these are luxurious extras, but the simple fact is that students who don't do them obtain a lower quality educational outcome. A further example of the divide between haves and have-nots.

128plant

Schools shouldnt be used as creches for wasters, teachers cant do their jobs with those muppets in their classes. Maybe put a grade achievement would be a start for students. Proper students should respect that, and it would be an incentive.
I think its about time that all politicians, especially the cabinet and shadow cabinet, should be made to spend at least 2days per year in the frontline of whatever dept they represent. Actually doing the most basic of the jobs there dealing with the public element of it. It should be manditory. Then maybe we would have proper systems and proper award schemes across the board.

Roy_Pemberton

Tripleeagle wrote: »

Absolutely. I completely agree that thanks to (or because of) EMA, more students stay on to study in Further Education.




With youth unemployment currently at 20.5%, it's definitely not good news. I'd rather see young people staying in education - even if it's hardly work - just so that they remember what a routine is like, instead of dropping into the JSA system.

However, with the current government's increased investment in Apprenticeships, I am hoping that young people will find work experience and vocational training to be a more appropriate form of education rather than being paid to attend A-Level or BTEC courses which are of no use to them.




I'm going to assume that the economists were not capable of coming up with figures for the classroom disruption caused by pupils who stay at school?

Although I appreciate that the figures provided by the IFSseem sound, the logic behind the system is flawed. If, in the end, society benefits more from the presence of EMA, then I support it; however, using the logic behind the system, I am slightly sceptic at the idea that EMA provides greater revenue for the government. After all, I cannot imagine that the people who are motivated to stay in education just because of the money will be earning higher salaries later on.

Perhaps it's time that there were a decent structured approach to determining what the best next step is for each individual, post-16, as I agree completely that there are many who will derive far more benefit from an apprenticeship, or some other approach than from 6th form study. If we add a robust review system to ensure that each individual is learning/behaving in a fashion destined to promote the desired (learning) outcomes then the whole thing should then be linked to a support arrangement (financially or otherwise) that best ensures they are in a position to follow the determined path, and that, in particular, ensures there is no incentive either way to follow a course of action that is less suitable for the individual. But the financial incentive provided by EMA to attend 6th form without the ability/committment that will ensure best results would surely be offset by the incentive to avoid the constant pressure to perform that this review system would/should introduce and so largely self-regulate out the described problems in classes. After all, you don't often find people in the workplace who are ready to ignore the onerous nature of the work in order to get a higher income, do you? Of course, this goes way beyond mere attendance requirements, and amounts to a "learning contract".

Roy_Pemberton

Lokolo wrote: »

I would agree with the 90%.

I also had 2 partime jobs and recieved EMA and spent it on alcohol and car insurance, both luxuries.

Have you thought that you could just be part of the 10%?

But are we happy that the 10% should just fall of the edge?

Roy_Pemberton

For all of those who try to argue that EMA is right to be abolished and requires no substitute measure, because it will "soon" be compulsory to remain in school until 18 anyway, I would point out that this is still not the case for those entering 6th form next year, and indeed, so far as I'm aware, for a number of years yet. Can anybody tell us with accuracy when the first case of post-16's having to continue to 18 compulsorily will actually be? Until it is, the pressure to instead leave school for those students from lower income backgrounds is very high, and although the argument that it is "an investment in their future" may be true, investment is only something that can be considered by those who can afford to invest.

I know the reaility of this as my mother and I were in that situation over 40 years ago when I was 16, and I consequently left school to start work despite being one of the top, academically, at a Grammar-Technical school, and have always regretted it.